UK Against Fluoridation

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Published on 30 Aug 2014
Fluoride should NEVER be ADDED to our tap water...FLUORIDATION CHEMICAL ARE TOXIC EVEN AT LOW DOSAGES...They are the waste products from the fertiliser industry and are classified as hazardous waste... It is the ONLY DRUG THAT IS FORCED AS MASS MEDICATION ON THE POPULATION WITH NO CONTROL OF DOSE!...

In the University of Wisconsin they did experiments on pigs and they overdosed them with fluoride...they used the synthetic one, same one that is being used and being added to the tap water in Ireland which is more dangerous than the regular calcium fluoride...the pigs which normally withstand toxic affects got to a point where very quickly they couldn't withstand the toxic affects...and didnt take very long to absorb into the pigs and kill them in a very short short period of time!...but nobody who was promoting fluoride mentioned that bulletin...and that was in 1953! The physiological factors against the body still remain the same...

Fluoride is used in rat poison to kill rats...when they drink it...it blows their intestines apart...There is NO GOOD HISTORY WITH FLUORIDATION...NONE!

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Shane Ross TD exposes the fluoride scandal in the Irish government....saying there is poison in our tap water.. He questions whether lobby groups with vested interests are responsible for the poisoning of the irish public?

Friday, August 29, 2014

The resistance against water fluoridation might be a different story if the naturally occurring element of fluoride was added to our water. Fluoride is found in all natural waters, levels can be very high in groundwater, depending on a number of factors, such as the types of rocks and minerals of that region. Drinking water is the largest fluoride source.

Our tap water, on the other hand, is littered with hydrofluorosilicic Acid, a toxic industrial waste by-product that governments have been adding to our drinking water for over sixty years. Again, we’re not talking about the natural element of fluoride here, we are talking about industrial toxic waste....................

Fluorosilicic acid regulation standard for use in water fluoridation is 98% purity. That's allows 2% arsenic and mercury from the hundreds of tonnes going into drinking water.

The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) suggested that fluoride-ridden toothpaste should be used on infants as soon as teeth begin to appear; as well as using “a smear (the size of a grain of rice) of toothpaste” with fluoride on children up to 3 years old.

The report concludes that “Fluoride has both risks and benefits for children, and pediatricians must be aware of these to promote their patients’ oral health.”

Several months ago, the American Dental Association (ADA) is recommending that children use toothpaste with fluoride as soon as their first tooth appears to “help prevent cavities”.

This statement claims to combat fluorosis and discoloration of teeth by increasing the use of fluoride.

The ADA said that parents should smear the fluoride-laced toothpaste directly onto the gums of their children ages 3 and older as one suggestion in a new set of guidelines that are designed to ensure more children are exposed to fluoride at a younger age.

Earlier this year, researchers from Harvard University (HU) the Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) confirmedprevious disclosures that state fluoride is a neurotoxin.

Philip Landrigan, dean for global health and chair of preventative medicine for Icahn School of Medicine (ISM) at MSH, and his colleague Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) concur that fluoride, among other neurotoxins are causational to the onset of neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs).

The researchers identify a few NDDs as:

• Autism• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)• Dyslexia

Nearly a decade ago, Lita Lee, chemist and enzyme therapist published a paper entitled, “Fluoride: A Modern Toxic Waste” which chastised the use of sodium fluoride in the public water supply, food and beverages for the average American to consume.

Lee wrote: “Yiamouyiannis documents research showing that fluoride increases the tumor growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, produces melanotic tumors, transforms normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals. For the original references to thesestudies, refer to Yiamouyiannis’ pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation.”

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

AUGUST 27, 2014

This is the first of a two-part series on the whitewash reviews which are produced by pro-fluoridation governments in an attempt to defuse the growing efforts to end this foolish practice worldwide. Part 1 is on the whitewash review produced by the NZ government a few days ago.Hand picked governmental review panelsIn the book The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010) my co-authors and I tried to explain how and why the practice of water fluoridation has been pursued so vigorously for so many years, despite the science that indicates that it is neither effective nor safe. The “how’s” are much easier to explain (see chapters 22-25) than the “why’s” (see chapter 26). One of the how’s is the self-serving governmental reviews which we describe in chapter 24. We lead of that chapter with a quote from the book Fluoride Wars (2009), which is otherwise slanted toward fluoridation. The authors, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr, conceded one very important point about the promotion of fluoridation. They write:The Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the costs and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favor of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together reports by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1941, 1944 and 1954; the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, 1971, 1977 and 1993; the World Health Organization in 1958 and 1970; and the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 are rife with the names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.Nothing has changed. Time and time again when this practice is under political or scientific threat pro-fluoridation governments hand pick panels (usually containing a mix of government employees and scientists who are known to be pro-fluoridation) to “review” the literature and thence deliver a rubber-stamp for government policy. In chapter 24 we discuss three recent examples of this 1) The Irish Fluoridation Forum (2002); 2) Health Canada’s selection of 6 experts to review the literature in 2007 (four of which were pro-fluoridation dentists) and 3) the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of 2007 (NHMRC, 2007).As Mark Twain observed “history may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme!”The latest NZ Whitewash reviewThis review titled the Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence, commissioned by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman and the Royal Society of New Zealand’s president Sir David Skegg, was released on August 22, 2014.A press report can be viewed here: http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoride-safe-and-effective-expert-review/As far as the science is concerned this is a classic case of inaccurate, selective, slanted and superficial use of the literature and later I will give one very clear example to illustrate that. But first here is what Mary Byrne, who heads up FAN NZ, says about the politics of this review. In an August press release, Mary wrote:Last week we had Dirty Politics this week we have Laundromat Science

A “review” of fluoridation published yesterday (22nd August) was chaired by committed fluoridationists Professors Peter Gluckman and David Skegg. Both of these men had already hung their hat on the fluoridation wagon.

It is obvious that this review was set up to allay the growing public concern and awareness that fluoride does cause harm rather than actually deal with science. This was PR not science, in other words, dirty science.

Last year Prof Gluckman issued an advisory stating that “the science was settled” and two weeks ago he said on Radio NZ that the Review would be looking at “what we know about the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water.” He didn’t say they would be examining the research that shows that fluoride is harmful and perhaps not even effective.

Less than two years ago, Prof Skegg claimed that there was no new evidence to require a review of fluoridation, in spite of the two most prestigious international reviews in history (The York Review 2000 and the National Research Council 2006) saying there was a dire need for better scientific information.

The NZ “expert panel” included only people who were already known to be ardently in favor of fluoridation and not one single person who is known to be opposed, or even someone neutral. It was therefore already a foregone conclusion.

Gregory Seymour who, as Head of the Otago Dental School, refused the Dental Students’ Association’s request to hear scientific evidence against fluoridation on campus by an international expert, and Murray Thomson is the Editor of the NZ Dental Journal and author of pro-fluoridation papers…

This review should be viewed against the recent background of the Health Minister of Israel banning fluoridation last week and the admission by Dr. Michael Beasley, the Deputy Director of the National Poisons Centre, that the jury is still out regarding fluoride’s safety...

The reality is that this “kangaroo review” is just a “finger in the dyke,” trying to hold back the inevitable demise of this failed policy. The weight of scientific evidence is that fluoridation is not only ineffective; it poses major health risks, as (has been) known since the 1940s.Fluoride Free New Zealand calls for an independently chaired open public discussion to uncover the truth about fluoridation.

Political science not physical science

The following passage from the NZ review will serve to illustrate the shoddy scientific analysis they provide. In a section titled “Effects on IQ” they write:Recently there have been a number of reports from China and other areas where fluoride levels in groundwater are naturally very high, that have claimed an association between high water fluoride levels and minimally reduced intelligence (measured as IQ) in children.In addition to the fact that the fluoride exposures in these studies were many (up to 20) times higher than any that are experienced in New Zealand or other CWF communities, the studies also mostly failed to consider other factors that might influence IQ, including exposures to arsenic, iodine deficiency, socioeconomic status, or the nutritional status of the children. Further, the claimed shift of less than one IQ point suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artifact of no functional significance. A recently published study in New Zealand followed a group of people born in the early 1970s and measured childhood IQ at the ages of 7, 9, 11 and 13 years, and adult IQ at the age of 38 years. Early-life exposure to fluoride from a variety of sources was recorded, and adjustments were made for factors potentially influencing IQ. This extensive study revealed no evidence that exposure to water fluoridation in New Zealand affects neurological development or IQ.We conclude that on the available evidence there is no appreciable effect on cognition arising from CWF.It should be incredibly embarrassing for the Royal Society of New Zealand to have its name associated with such an inaccurate and biased summary of the literature on fluoride’s impact on children’s intellectual development.

1) Gluckman and Skegg claim “a shift of less than one IQ point” in the 27 studies reviewed by Choi et al (2012). In reality, the average lowering of IQ was 6.9 IQ points and that is NOT "of no functional significance.” Gluckman and Skegg’s mistake here is huge. A downward shift of 5 IQ points (or more) in a large population would more than double the number of persons who are mentally handicapped (with IQs less than 70) and more than halve the number of very bright persons or geniuses (persons with IQs over 130).

2) Gluckman and Skegg claim that, “fluoride exposures in these studies were many (up to 20) times higher than any that are experienced in New Zealand or other CWF communities.” There are several problems with this statement.

A) By using the word “exposures” they are blurring the distinction between concentration and dose. Two populations drinking water with different fluoride concentrations can overlap in the doses received by individuals. For example, high water drinkers of water at 1 ppm could get a higher dose than low-water drinkers at 4 ppm.

B) The use of the phrase “up to 20 times” higher is deceptive since only two out of the 27 studies had the “high-fluoride” village concentrations going up to 11.5 ppm.

Moreover, when harm is found toxicologists and regulators do not normally focus on the highest level but the lowest level where harm occurs. They try to identify a Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and even a No Observable Adverse Effect level (NOAEL). Thus more relevant to NZ (and other countries with water fluoridation programs in the range of 0.6 to 1.2 ppm) is the fact that 8 of the reviewed studies had concentrations in the “high-fluoride” village (where IQ was lowered) of less than 3 ppm. Thus a significant number of these studies indicate that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking fluoridated water in NZ or other fluoridated countries.

I should add that in one study the authors sub-divided the children in the high-fluoride village into 5 groups with increasing fluoride concentrations in their well water from 0.75 to 4.3 ppm. They found that as the fluoride concentration increased a) their mean IQ of the sub-group was lowered and b) the percentage of children with an IQ less than 80 increased. The lowest level at which an IQ lowering occurred was 1.26 ppm (Xiang, et al., 2003).

C) This lack of an adequate margin of safety gets worse when one notes that Gluckman and Skegg are also ignoring other sources of fluoride, which could make it worse for NZ children. For example, rural Chinese children are less likely to use fluoridated toothpaste and a higher percentage would be breast-fed not bottle-fed. In these two respects NZ children would be getting more fluoride from these sources than the Chinese children.

3) Gluckman and Skegg claim that of the 27 studies most “failed to consider other factors that might influence IQ, including exposures to arsenic, iodine deficiency, socioeconomic status, or the nutritional status of the children.”

However, the fact that many of the studies did not control for all of these factors does not obviate the need to look for the studies that did. For example, Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) controlled for lead, iodine and more recently arsenic and his work needs to be studied very carefully not simply dismissed because of other weaker studies.

Gluckman and Skegg are also demonstrating a double standard here because the study they offer as evidence of no lowering of IQ (Broadbent et al, 2014) also failed to control for some for these same key variables. In fact, the Broadbent study is a very weak study since they have virtually no children in the control group i.e. they had virtually no children that were neither exposed to fluoridated water nor fluoride supplements.

4) Gluckman and Skegg do a very poor job of reviewing all the other voluminous evidence that fluoride is a potent neurotoxin. So while perhaps none of these individual IQ studies is conclusive, the overall consistency of the results is remarkable considering they were done by different research teams in different countries, and over a very wide geographical area in China. The results are also consistent with many other animal and human studies. For example, there have been 19 animal studies that have shown that animals perform less well in learning and memory experiments when exposed to fluoride. It is the weight of evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity that should make responsible scientists and health officials much more cautious than Gluckman and Skegg.

While at this point we can do little to change the whitewash dished up by Gluckman and Skegg other than exposing their political agenda and their lack of science, we might be able to do something more about the new review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), an agency of the Australian Federal government.So please help prevent the NHMRC dishing up another whitewash review on fluoridation by sending in the online message below. The Australian public was duped in 2007: But once bitten twice shy. Please help Australian citizens and activists prevent this from happening again. Please personalize this online message with an opening sentence about yourself and then forward to the Australian Federal Health Minister (Rt. Hon. Peter Dutton) and the CEO of the NHMRC Professor Warwick Anderson, with copies to the Prime Minister and others.Your own sentence here) I wish to register my concern about the NHMRC’s selection of professionals chosen for its current fluoridation review. When examining the selection, the perception of “conflict of interest” and “potential bias” is difficult to shake. Not one single expert offered to the NHMRC by citizens to help in the review process has been accepted. This is in sharp contrast to the US National Research Council that appointed a more balanced panel to review the toxicology of fluoride in water. Incredibly, the 500-page landmark review produced by this panel in 2006 was ignored by the NHMRC in 2007 and is being excluded from consideration in 2014. To make matters worse the process for submitting public input has been rushed (from July 23 to 10am August 22), overly restrictive, and unnecessarily complicated (see https://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/user/register ).It would appear that the current review will be a repeat of the NHMRC’s review of 2007, where the clear intent was to protect the government’s fluoridation policy rather than the health of its citizens. We urge you to ensure that the NHMRC serves Australia in the best traditions of service and science and not as a rubber-stamp for government policy.Please personalize the online message below and ask others to do the same.CLICK HERE TO SEND ONLINE MESSAGE

Waynesville City Council voted unanimously Thursday to remove the placement of fluoride from its water system
By Mandy Matney
editor@waynesvilledailyguide.comWaynesville City Council voted unanimously Thursday to remove the placement of fluoride from its water system.
The vote repeals a 1987 ordinance that introduced the placement of fluoride into the water system.
Waynesville Mayor pro Tem Mike France led the meeting while Mayor Luge Hardman was absent. He said that the decision was made after the utility committee researched the costs and side effects of the placement of fluoride in the water supply system.
The review revealed that the benefits of adding fluoride to the wafer supply system are minimal and could be an unnecessary water treatment process.
The ordinance states that fluoride is provided in the form of Fluorosilicic Acid which is considered a hazardous material by the Environmental Protection Agency and presents risks to city employees and to water pipes and other water equipment......

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why new research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising!

Fluoride’s neurotoxicity has been the subject of academic debate for decades, and now a matter of increasingly impassioned controversy among the general public, as well. From ‘conspiracy theories’ about it being first used in drinking water in Russian and Nazi concentration camps to chemically lobotomize captives, to its now well-known IQ lowering properties, to its ability to enhance the calcification of the pineal gland – the traditional ‘seat of the soul’ – many around the world, and increasingly in the heavily fluoridated regions of the United States, are starting to organize at the local and statewide level to oust this ubiquitous toxicant from municipal drinking water.

Now, a new study published in the Pharmacognosy Magazine titled, “Curcumin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by fluoride: An in vivo evidence,” adds experimental support to the suspicion that fluoride is indeed a brain-damaging substance, also revealing that a natural spice-derived protective agent against the various health effects associated with this compound is available....................

Who knew that chewing what today’s farmers call the “world’s worst weed” could prevent cavities? Seems our early ancestors, who lived during the pre-Mesolithic, Neolithic and Meroitic periods, had a clue. Granted, they didn’t have Coke or Pepsi to fill their mouths with refined sugars. Still, the nagging question remains, what’s in the world’s most prolific weed that saved our ancestors from rotting molars?

Brush Daily and Chew Some Cyperus Rotundus

Stephen Buckley, an archaeological chemist from the University of York in England, believes he’s found the answer. He and his team recently analyzed the hardened plaque in the fossilized teeth of our prehistoric ancestors and concluded that the chemical compounds in purple nutsedge (cyperus rotundus) may have protected them against tooth decay. The highly technical report Buckley and his colleagues published in PLOS One offers a detailed scientific explanation. But here’s the layman’s take: The research, conducted at Al Khiday, a pre-historic site on the White Nile in Central Sudan, revealed that before man developed agriculture and after agricultural plants were harvested, Al Khiday tribesmen ate purple nut sedge to inhibit Streptococcus mutans, a bacterium that contributes to tooth decay. In fact, less than one percent of people who lived in Sudan thousands of years ago had cavities, abscesses, or other signs of tooth decay, in spite of their high grain content diet, which created a hospitable environment for bacteria.

The World’s Worst Weed May be Good for You

While our ancestors enjoyed less frequent visits to their village dentist, they ate these weeds primarily for food. The purple nutsedge’s tubers store energy and carbohydrates, which early man needed to hunt wild game and fight enemies. Turns out, Cyperus Rotundus, (also known as coco grass, Java grass and nut grass) is a pretty amazing plant. It’s hearty enough to grow on every continent, thrives in poor soil, and is resistant to most chemical herbicides. The truth is, purple nutsedge has seemingly endless uses. The plant’s tuber may be bitter to the taste, but it’s packed with trace minerals, nutrients, and the essential amino acid lysine, an antiviral against the herpes. The Chinese steam the tubers, slice them lengthwise and dry them in the sun to make tea leaves that they claim helps resolve grief and resolve stomach pain from anger.

Cyperus Rotundus…the ubiquitous, unstoppable weed that may help prevent tooth decay (and maybe a few other ailments). Who knew?

Monday, August 25, 2014

No good reason for fluoride
Aug. 25, 2014, midnight
The last time I went to a dentist, I remember having a very peculiar conversation about the fluoridation of water in the border.

The conversation revolved around their quite negative opinion about the potential negative health effects that fluoride has on cognitive development.
I researched just to determine if there was any credibility in his claims.
The first thing that shocked me was that Israel’s Supreme Court has just ruled that water fluoridation in the country must end by this year.

Israeli scientists have concluded that fluoride is a “pro-inflammatory agent that can contribute to all inflammatory diseases, not just asthma, and that it is an unethical form of non-consented mass-medication”.
Even worse is the legislation in Israel will make it illegal to add sodium fluoride to their own personal water tank.
Arguably, quite a strong condemnation of the organic compound that is added to our water without our own choice.
I also found an empirical study from Harvard School of Public Health and China Medical University in Shenyang.

Together, they conducted 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may “adversely affect cognitive development in children; even comparing fluoride to other poisons such as lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain”.

It is ridiculous that this largely unknown chemical is being added to our drinking water, to prevent tooth decay, when in Germany and Finland, they removed fluoride and they have not experienced an increase in cases of tooth-decay.

The Albury City Council needs to either conduct their own research or take this on board.

Most New Zealand children and many at risk adults are exceeding the upper toxic limits for chronic ingestion of fluoride (0.05 mg/kg body weight/day), fluoride crosses the placenta but it's effects on the unborn child is unknown. The total fluoride intake at the individual level is unknown and uncontrolled. The MOH considers it acceptable to continue drip feeding HFA, a class 6 toxin, to communities until it becomes obvious that harm is occurring.

These facts were acknowledged by the report, which nevertheless bizarrely concluded that fluoridation is completely safe for all people.

The somewhat confused nature of the report, full of contradiction and unsupported statements, is an indication of how the panel of pro-fluoride experts must have struggled to put square pegs into round holes and reconcile the scientific facts with their pro-fluoride agenda.

An honest and fair review would have included a balanced panel of experts , as did the NRC review 2006, and been conducted with a transparent process.

The councils who called for the review may feel short-changed about this, but the end result should leave them in no doubt as to why water fluoridation is rejected by 90% of the world and why it was banned in Israel just last week.

Aisling FitzGibbon aka ‘The Girl Against Fluoride’ is leading the people's movement to end water fluoridation. The Girl Against Fluoride is a public awareness campaign.Part of the campaign involves taking legal action against the Irish Government to stop them from adding fluoride to the drinking water supply. In the run up to the court case we are engaging in a nationwide public awareness campaign to inform as many people as possible about the adverse health effects of fluoride. Aisling is taking on this legal battle for the sole purpose of ensuring the right to clean, safe drinking water for the people of Ireland. There is no financial gain to be made on her part. Although Aisling is the one initiating the case, she really needs your help to make this happen.

The Girl Against Fluoride Creative Director

Martha is a secondary school teacher who is also trained in Nutritional Therapy. Martha believes in the power of the imagination and how it can be used to create a positive, magical and vibrant world. Martha enjoys English and French literature and plans on writing more in the future. Martha wants health care to move towards a natural form of healing that addresses nutritional deficiencies, underlying toxicity and emotional blockages. Removing fluoride from Ireland's drinking water is crucial for healing and for maintaining health. Having witnessed her own daughter Aisling's recovery from depression, Martha realizes the power of natural healing and how fluoride free water is fundamental for mental health and overall health.Homer - The Girl Against Fluoride MascotHomer likes nothing better than being on the campaign trail travelling around Ireland in The Girl Against Fluoride mobile. Homer is a champion activist dog and is proud to stand up for both animal and human rights. Homer enjoys drinking fluoride free water and travels with his own filtered water when staying with relatives and friends. Homer is almost 17 years old and he attributes his longevity to drinking fluoride free water, a wholesome organic diet and the love of 'The Girl Against Fluoride' team.

Children in parts of Greater Manchester have among the worst teeth in England, shocking new figure show.

The rate of children in Manchester, Salford and other parts of the region having dental work including fillings and root canal surgery is among the highest in the country.

NHS data scrutinised by the MEN shows that children in Manchester were having a tooth filled every three minutes on average last year.

The news comes 12 months after the MEN revealed that almost half of five-year-olds in Salford and Oldham now have decayed, missing or filled teeth.

One senior dentist has told the MEN he is ‘heartbroken’ when he sees the state of some children’s teeth in Greater Manchester.

Dr Ben Atkins, who runs six dental surgeries in the region, said: “As a dentist, it destroys you every time you see tooth decay. It’s totally preventable.”

He has urged parents and grandparents to take more care of their children’s teeth by ensuring they brush them twice a day with fluoride toothpaste and give them milk and water instead of sugary drinks.

Figures released by Health and Social Care Information Centre show that children in Salford had the fifth highest rate of root canal treatments in 2013/14.

Manchester also had the tenth highest rate for children who have had permanent fillings and sealant repairs.

Bury had the third highest rate in the country of children who have had their teeth veneered. Children in Bury are also three times more likely and in Salford twice more likely to have had veneers compared with the national average.

The figures also show that eight out of ten children in Central Manchester and Salford have been seen by a dentist in the past two years - among the highest rates in England.

Separate figures last September showed that the proportion of five-year-olds with tooth decay is above the national average in all but one of the region’s ten districts - Stockport.

Public health chiefs say there is still much to do to reduce the inequalities in levels of dental decay.

Dr Atkins said: “Parents have total control over what their children eat and drink. It’s about educating people and getting the simple message out there to brush their children’s teeth twice a day with fluoride toothpaste.”

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Published on 22 Aug 2014
Do you brush your teeth? Drink water? Then today's show is for you. Dr. Paul Connett arrives from the Fluoride Action Network to tell all when it comes to the safety of mandatory fluoridation.

He's got some hard answers to swallow. And - Mrs. Clutterbuck down the street thinks it's a bad idea. - Oh - you'll just have to tune in to understand that one!

A "review" of fluoridation published yesterday (22nd August) was chaired by committed fluoridationists Professors Peter Gluckman and David Skegg.

Both of these men had already hung their hat on the fluoridation wagon.

It is obvious that this review was set up to allay the growing public concern and awareness that fluoride does cause harm rather than actually deal with science. This was PR not science, in other words, dirty science.

Last year Prof Gluckman issued an advisory stating that "the science was settled" and two weeks ago he said on Radio NZ that the Review would be looking at "what we know about the safety and efficacy of fluoride in water." He didn’t say they would be examining the research that shows that fluoride is harmful and perhaps not even effective.

Less than two years ago, Prof Skegg claimed that there was no new evidence to require a review of fluoridation, in spite of the two most prestigious international reviews in history (The York Review 2000 and the National Research Council 2006) saying there was a dire need for better scientific information.

The NZ "expert panel" included only people who were already known to be ardently in favour of fluoridation and not one single person who is known to be opposed, or even someone neutral. It was therefore already a foregone conclusion.

Gregory Seymour who, as Head of the Otago Dental School, refused the Dental Students’ Association’s request to hear scientific evidence against fluoridation on campus by an international expert, and Murray Thomson is the Editor of the NZ Dental Journal and author of pro-fluoridation papers.

One surprise is that the review has gone so far as to claim that fluoridation works systemically (i.e. by swallowing) before teeth erupt.

This belief was not only scientifically discredited 15 years ago by the US Public Health Service’s Centers for Disease Control, but has also been acknowledged as wrong in court in sworn affidavits by Health Ministry representatives and is contrary to what the top consultant to the MoH’s National fluoridation Information Service told the Hamilton City Council last year.

The Gluckman-Skegg review does not cite a single piece of research showing adverse health effects from fluoride, out of the dozens provided to the Royal Society in 2012, and the hundreds, if not thousands, in existence.

The report even contradicts itself by correctly identifying that children under 15 years of age are exceeding the toxicity limits every day, and then concludes there are no health risks for any group.

This review should be viewed against the recent background of the Health Minister of Israel banning fluoridation last week and the admission by Dr Michael Beasley, the Deputy Director of the National Poisons Centre, that the jury is still out regarding fluoride’s safety, and yet another international study showing that fluoridation reduces IQ. This joins 47 other studies, ignored by the Gluckman-Skegg review, against the bogus

‘Dunedin IQ study" which does not identify individual fluoride exposure, but which is quoted in the summary as if it was one of the most important studies.

The reality is that this "kangaroo review" is just a "finger in the dyke", trying to hold back the inevitable demise of this failed policy. The weight of scientific evidence is that fluoridation is not only ineffective; it poses major health risks, as known since the 1940s.

Fluoride Free New Zealand calls for an independently chaired open public discussion to uncover the truth about fluoridation.

By: Jacqui Stanford, New Zealand News Anti-fluoridation campaigners are unmoved by a review the Prime Minister's chief science advisor says puts an end to claims it can cause cancer and other diseases.
Sir Peter Gluckman headed the study, which was reviewed by international experts and unequivocally found no evidence of negative health effects.
The Dental Association says it backs up scientific consensus, over anti-fluoride pseudo-science.
However anti-fluoride dentist Stan Litras says all those on the panel were pro-fluoride.

He says there should be an even-handed panel of people without agendas.

We live in a country that used to boast of having the most freedom, the highest average standard of living, the highest level of productivity, the highest level of scholastic achievement and one of the (if not the) healthiest societies on this planet… My how the might have fallen. In The Liberty Beacon project we often discuss the dumbing down of America and point the proverbial finger at the failings of our system of education or the massive onslaught of propagandized (so called) entertainment and news shoveled down our throats by the mainstream media.
But is this the true mechanism of dumbing down a society or are there other more physical mechanisms in play. Are these mechanisms intentional and malicious, the result of corruption and complicity, or the result of an incompetent government and regulatory system?
We discuss often the dangers of such known mechanisms as vaccines, GMO’s and Geo-engineering, all proven to cause physical harm to the human physiology, but rarely do we hear much, or enough about a huge and continuing blight on a vast portion of this population … Fluoride! This substance truly has the capability to dumb down America in a most efficient fashion as you will see in the following video series.
Sodium Fluoride is a known toxin, a deadly poison and a byproduct of the manufacture of aluminum and fertilizers (among other things). It is considered by our health agencies to be a hazardous waste far too deadly to just be dumped into landfills where it may eventually poison the local population … So instead lets put it in their drinking water and toothpaste and tell them it is good for them … Now this sounds absolutely asinine … right, and it is … but it is also the scenario a vast majority of us live with every day....

My son is 3yo and recently had his 3yr dental check up. The dentist said he has four small cavities and suggested we do 6 fluoride varnishes to stop the decay and reevaluate after that. She said they will decrease his chances of needing fills. He's never had dental issues before. I breastfed him until 26.5 months old, he eats a pretty healthy diet (I dont buy things with HFCS, he gets fruits and veggies with every meal, drinks mostly water), and I've been brushing his teeth once a day before bed with non-fluoride toothpaste. Our water is fluoridated and he drinks a lot of water so I didnt want to add to it by using fluoride toothpaste and I'm not 100% comfortable with the fluoride varnishes, but I dont want him to have bad teeth. I have upped our brushing to twice a day and have started to try and floss his teeth once a week, but what can I do for now to help his cavities not progress??

To top it off, our insurance would only allow 3 varnishes to go towards our deductible, the other 3 would be considered out of network, we still have to pay for all of them because were no where close to meeting our deductible, and I'm 37 weeks pregnant so we've got a lot of other medical bills to pay right now and in the near future. Im hoping to get some suggestions as to what I can do now to help his teeth while we sort out insurance, finances, researching the fluoride varnishes, and welcoming a new baby into the family. Ive heard brushing with baking soda and oil pulling can improve dental health, but will that help the cavities he already has? Should I add a fluoride mouthwash? He still swallows his toothpaste so im on the fence about adding fluoride toothpaste, but if it will help in the meantime I'll try to get him to spit it out. I'm just not sure what other options are out there. All the dentists say are fluoride fluoride fluoride.

Mental disabilities in children include both developmental problems of the brain and mental health conditions, such as autism, and, unfortunately, a child’s family income plays a major role in their chances of being diagnosed with such a disorder.

A recent study conducted at the University of Pittsburgh has revealed that childhood mental disability rates in the United States have reached a historic high, which has health care professionals scrambling to find better treatment and prevention strategies for at-risk children.

“This study demonstrates what a lot of pediatricians have been noticing for several years – that they are seeing more neurodevelopmental and mental health problems in their clinical practices,” Dr. Amy Houtrow, associate professor of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Pediatrics at University of Pittsburgh, said in astatement. “As we look toward the future, the pediatric health care workforce and system needs to adapt to assure the best possible health and functional outcomes for children with disabilities related to neurodevelopmental and mental health conditions.”.................

Same reason as they also have poor dental health, not spending money on fresh vegetables and fruit perhaps.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

A city attempt to get a class-action lawsuit over Prince George's fluoridated water dismissed has been put on hold.

Kootenay resident Kevin Millership filed the legal action back in March alleging the city's practice of adding fluoride to the water is the cause of the degenerative tooth disease fluorsis.

The city was asking the court to strike several allegations - including negligence, assault, nuisance and battery - from Millership's notice of civil claim. Represented by James Yardley, the city was also asking to have Millership's entire action dismissed because he does not have legal representation.

According to the Legal Professions Act, only a person acting on their own behalf can pursue legal action without a lawyer.

In an Aug. 13 ruling, Supreme Court Justice Margot Fleming adjourned the city's application as well as Millership's application to have the class action certified. Millership now has until Sept. 19 to get a lawyer to handle the proposed class action and the city can re-file its application to strike his claim after that date.

"I'm working on accessing funds from the Council of Canadians' Social Justice Fund to hire a lawyer," Millership said, in an email to the Citizen. "I also have the ability to amend my claim and drop the class action component and argue negligence myself."

Millership said if anyone is interested in helping him secure a lawyer, they can contact him at 250-355-2844 or email kevinmillership@live.ca.

Dr. Paul Connett’s lectures on fluoride and fluoridation given at the Rockport High School on the weekend of Aug. 2-3 were inspirational and informative.

As Dr. Connett predicted, those in the audience who did not agree with him — although given ample time to refute his scientific facts right there on the spot — chose not to do so in person, but waited until he was safely out of town before going on the attack.

The question-and-answer period after each lecture lasted almost as long as the lectures themselves, but no one stepped up to the plate to challenge Dr. Connett on the science.

Over 70 invitations went out to doctors, dentists and other professionals on Cape Ann and beyond. It was advertised in the paper and on posters, handed out as flyers, inviting all pro-fluoridationists to come and state their case. Especially invited for the second night, yet not one pro-fluoridationist spoke up.

Dr. Connett instructed the moderator to allow them an hour of time if they wanted it. Nevertheless, as predicted, attacks against Dr. Connett began after he was no longer available to reply.

If pro-fluoridationists truly believed they’re on firm scientific footing, either in terms of the safety or effectiveness of fluoridation, they’d have gladly used Sunday Aug. 3 as a platform to challenge Dr. Connett. However, they lack the courage of their convictions.

After all, they can’t refute the science, because it appears science is not on their side.

The Dental Surgery general dentist Theodore Pang is a strong proponent of school dental programs and education to raise dental health in Tasmania.AUSTRALIANS are more likely to have a full set of chompers than New Zealanders, but rising tooth decay in our young children could change this trend.

A national report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on dental health found that more than 60per cent of nine-year-olds accessing dental services had decayed, missing or filled teeth.In 2010 more than half of children aged 12 and over had decay in their permanent teeth.

Australian Dental Association Tasmania president Chris Sanzano said there were no big surprises in yesterday’s report, with the trends present in this state. He said he believed kids were hospitalised every week on the North-West Coast with tooth decay.

‘‘We’ve known for a while that children’s decay rates have been increasing,’’ Dr Sanzano said.‘‘We need to be promoting healthy snacks for children including fresh fruit, and avoiding all soft drinks, fruit juices, cordial and instead drinking tap water.’’

The report also found that 38 per cent of people 15 and over had not visited a dentist in 12 months. Dr Sanzano said this was most likely higher in Tasmania, because of lower socio economic groups, and longer waiting lists in public dental health. The Dental Surgery dentist Theodore Pang said a greater focus on prevention education was needed to alleviate dental health issues in the community.

‘‘You need to look at the long-term view, and not just what needs to be done right now,’’ Dr Pang said.

Monday, August 18, 2014

From Fluoride Action Network

Just occasionally during the long sordid
history of fluoridation an individual stands up against the bullying tactics of
the arrogant promoters of fluoridation. This has just happened in Israel where
the Minister of Health Yael German has ended fluoridation in Israel despite the
vocal and vociferous attacks of fluoridation promoters which have been gleefully
- and one-sidedly - reported
in The Jerusalem Post.

Doubtless these ill-informed critics will
continue their bullying tactics and do everything they can to encourage dentists
and doctors outside Israel to join their ignorant outcry. However, before the
latter do so they should read carefully the letter below written to the Health
Minister by Dr. Hardy Limeback, one of Canada's leading dental researchers and
former head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of
Toronto.

You can also see FAN’s
open letter to Minister German sent on June 25,
supporting her opposition to fluoridation and signed by many professionals from
around the world.

We congratulate the Israeli Minister of
Health, Yael German, for performing her job with integrity while under great
pressure. She has offered the international public health community the model to
follow on the fluoridation issue.

I have been
following the debate on
fluoridation in Israel for some time.
I served 3.5 years on the US National
Academies of Sciences Subcommittee on Fluoride in Drinking
Water.
The NAS is sometimes referred to as the
‘Supreme Court of Science’, an organization that sets up unbiased (or balanced)
committees to review scientific issues of concern to Americans. The committee on
which I served examined the health effects of fluoride in drinking water. Our
report, published March 22, 2006, can be found
online.
Our committee was funded by the US EPA –
we were charged NOT to examine the benefits of fluoridation but we
certainly reviewed all relevant literature on the toxicity of fluoride,
including those at low levels of intake, including the toxic side effects of
fluoridation.
The EPA has still not made a ruling on
the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for fluoride, while the Department of
Human Health Services, being concerned about the dental fluorosis that
fluoridation is causing, has lowered its recommendation for levels of fluoride
in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L (ppm). The American Dental Association and the
Center for Disease Control in the US both agreed that fluoridated tap water
should not be used to make up infant formula, since that increases the risk of
dental fluorosis. To me, dental fluorosis is a biomarker for fluoride poisoning,
not just of developing teeth but of all mineralizing tissues. Health Canada,
taking the recommendation of only pro-fluoridation experts, continues to
recommend fluoridation (now at a lowered level of 0.7 ppm) despite mounting
evidence that the optimum therapeutic level of fluoride in drinking water, if
there is even any benefit at all, is at 0.35 ppm or less.
I have personally conducted years of
funded research at the University of Toronto on the topic of fluorosis (fluoride
poisoning) and bone effects of fluoride intake. A bone study, for which we
received national funding, comparing hipbones of people who live in Toronto
(fluoridated since 1963) to the bones of people from Montreal (Montreal has
never been fluoridated), suggested disturbing negative changes in the bone
quality of Torontonians. This is not something that was supposed to happen.
Fluoridation was only supposed to affect teeth.
Since we studied a cross section of the
population as they were selected for hip replacement, we were unable to examine
only those people who were exposed to fluoridation for a lifetime. If we had
been able to do this, we would have seen a much greater negative effect of
fluoride since fluoride accumulates with age (our study confirmed
that).
The NAS committee examined the literature
on the effects of fluoride on bone up until 2006. Since that time there have
been more studies to confirm the link between fluoridation and bone changes, as
well as a link to bone cancer. Our Toronto vs Montreal study was not included in
the 2006 review by the US National Academies of Sciences because it only just
got published in 2010.
I am also the co-author of studies that
show that too much fluoride accumulation in the dentin of teeth (the tissue that
supports enamel) causes its properties to change as well. I suspect that a
lifetime of fluoride accumulation on teeth causes them to be more brittle and
fracture more easily. This effect of fluoridation has never been
examined.
As a practicing dentist, I have been
diagnosing and treating patients with dental fluorosis for over 30 years. My
research on dental fluorosis (confirmed by the studies reported in the 2006 NRC
report as well as the York review) show fluoridation significantly increases the
numbers of patients seeking expensive cosmetic repairs. No one in public health
has ever accounted for the added costs of treating dental fluorosis when
considering the cost-benefit ratio of fluoridation.
Our 2006 NRC (NAS) report also concluded
that there is a likelihood that fluoride can promote bone cancer. On page 336 it
is stated Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote
cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and
mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). This alone should force the EPA to set a
fluoride maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water at ZERO
(as it did for arsenic). The EPA has not yet made a decision as to fluoride’s
carcinogenicity. In addition we now know that fluoride is neurotoxic and that
children with noticeable fluorosis have lowered IQs.
I have looked at this from all angles and
I have to conclude that fluoridated cities would save money on fluoridation
costs, parents would save on costly dental bills treating dental fluorosis,
dental decay rates would remain unchanged or even continue to decline (as has
been demonstrated in many modern fluoridation cessation studies) and the health
of city residents would improve when industrial waste products are no longer
added/ to the drinking water (I find it absurd that the fluoride used to
fluoridate drinking water is derived from industrial waste without purification,
increasing carcinogenic heavy metal levels, such as arsenic and radionuclides,
in the drinking water). In my opinion, purposely adding carcinogens to the
drinking water at levels that are known to increase cancer rates (e.g. arsenic
at parts per billion), in my opinion, is against all concepts of 'do no harm'.
Lawsuits have now been launched to hold those responsible for this practice
accountable.
Several Canadian cities have decided it
is not worth continuing the practice of fluoridation. These can be viewed at
COF-COF.ca. The number of communities that are no longer fluoridating their
drinking water has reduced the total percentage of Canadians on artificially
fluoridated water down from 2/3 to about 1/3.
There is no doubt in my mind that
fluoridation has next to no benefit in terms of reduced dental decay. The modern
literature is clear on that. Fluoridation cessation studies fail to show an
increase in dental decay. In fact, caries rates continue to drop. The York
review, held up as the best evidence for ‘safe and effective’ for fluoridation
is flawed because a) it could not find a single randomized, double blinded
clinical trial, b) none of the clinical trials adjusted for confounding factors
known to affect dental decay such as vitamin D levels, daily sugar intake,
sweeteners, fissure sealants etc.. c) lumping modern studies with very old
studies when decay rates were a lot higher resulted in an over-estimate of the
benefit.
In the 1950’s, when fluoridation started
to catch on, it was claimed that there was as much as a 40% benefit. Despite the
evidence being very weak, fluoridation might have been worthwhile, especially
since fluoridated toothpastes were not introduced until the late 1960’s. After
the introduction of fluoridated toothpaste, the benefit of fluoridation
declined. Now, if there is any benefit at all, one could expect perhaps a 5-10%
benefit in children. If half the children are already cavity free and the
average decay rates are only two cavities per child it means cities have to
fluoridate for 20 years in order to save one decayed surface for every fifth
child. More recent studies conducted in Australia show that a lifetime of
fluoridation MIGHT save about one tooth from decay from childhood to middle age.
Clearly, that is NOT a policy that demonstrates fiscal responsibility and cities
that do not do due diligence in terms of cost-benefit analysis are wasting tax
payers money and may actually be putting their councillors in a position of
liability. The claim that for every $1 spent on fluoridation saves $38 was never
accurate and is currently exceedingly misleading. It simply is a
lie.
No government agency anywhere in the
world is properly monitoring the accumulation of fluoride in people consuming
fluoridated water. You cannot medicate people without knowing whether they are
overdosing on the medication and whether there are any long-term negative health
effects.
Fluoride added to drinking water has NOT
been shown to be safe and effective. In fact, as more and more peer-reviewed
studies on fluoride toxicity appear in the literature, it has become clear to me
that the pendulum is certainly shifting to ‘not safe, and no longer
effective’.
I would be more than happy to provide you
and all the Israeli experts in the CC list a full list of peer-reviewed studies
on which I have based my expert opinion expressed in this
email.
You have made the right decision NOT to
fluoridate in Israel. Congratulations.

Sincerely,

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD,
DDS

Professor Emeritus and Former Head of
Preventive Dentistry,Faculty of Dentistry, University of
Toronto